memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Story arcs
Multi-Episode Stories (Initial discussion from TF) Would it be possible to create a page for all multi-hangers such as Redemption and Best of Both Worlds, episode stories. This would include feature length episodes such as Emissary and Dark Frontier, cliff three parters (Vulcan Arch, Augment Arch, ect), Xindi Arch, various Dominion Archs (ie from Call to Arms to Sacrifice of Angels, and from Penumbra to What You Leave Behind). This page could also iclude situations where a story was continued, but not back to back, (ie Space Seed and Wrath of Kahn). Jaz 22:25, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC) :I don't have a problem with that... in fact, it sounds like a good idea to me. All we gotta do is figure out what to call it -- I don't think Multi-Episode Stories will cut it. ;) But it's a good idea and would be helpful, in my opinion. --From Andoria with Love 22:29, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::That is a good idea. Just call it Arcs. Add redirects from Story arc and two-parter; those terms are already in use so they can easily be wikified to point to this new page. --9er 22:47, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::Are we talking about a simple list of arcs here, with links to the various episodes, or are we talking about more? If the latter, then there might be a better way to handle this (please let's here more about your ideas, then). If it's the former, sure, why not, but we would then have to decide what exactly is an "official" arc and what isn't. -- Cid Highwind 22:52, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::This seems like an interesting idea and might be useful, but I have a couple questions of my own ::::#What about things like the "Founder arc" that went from somewhere around The Die is Cast to By Inferno's Light? I don't even know if that can be specifically defined, but it was an arc in its own right. ::::#Where on MA will this be added? I don't want it getting hidden save for recent changes list the way the parodies page was. Specifying somewhere on Main Page/temp (now obsolete) or one of the pages listed there (don't add it yet) would be nice. ::::#Related to #1, what qualifies for this? Does Q count as one big arc? ::::Don't get me wrong - I like the idea, I just want to make sure it's planned out before it happens. :) --Broik 20:43, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::::I don't think that it is necessary to have a list of two-parters and blah-parters, but it might be interesting to have an article that lists all episodes concerning some continiuos developed stories, like the Section 31 in DS9 or the Maquis-related episodes in TNG, in chronological order. All the stuff where you can't simply click on the "next episode"-link on the episode page. Persons like Q might not necessarily be listed there, but could be. Story arcs or Continued subjects might be a proper name. --Memory 21:53, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::::Memory's idea sounds perfect, but please, no one should take the red links as license to create the article(s) before the idea has been agreed upon completely and we know what the name will be. The one concern I would have is that we would have to make sure the information didn't sound too similar to the relevant article, e.g. we need to make it a holistic (complete) view instead of a summary of what happened, if that makes sense. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 00:13, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::Eh. Jaz could have easily created this page on his own without consulting anyone and there'd be no arguing. I have to laugh at Cid's contribution. People are into Jaz's suggestion but Cid says, stop: let's change it around and do something else. Memory suggests something slightly different. (I don't hear any opposition to it! Revert!) Sorry, this is ringing bells for me. I say, less wanking, more production. Jaz: you should create the page exactly as you envisioned it; no one needs permission to create a page in the regular article space. Anyone else can come by and edit it later. --9er 02:27, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::::::Correction: It probably would have ended up on the Votes for Deletion page or something, but based on the deletion of MA:DR in place of Memory Alpha:DR (which makes absolutely no sense and defeats the purpose of having a short'cut link), I know what you mean. However, I don't think a two-part episodes count as a story arc, and as such, Memory's idea was just a refining of Jaz's. In any case, interesting idea Jaz. :-) I think we can take it a step further and discuss the changing nature of story arcs as the series went on; DS9 was the biggest influence there, and by the time ENT came around, you had multiple story arcs going on regularly. But the Vedek is right insofar as we need to decide which name to use. Weyoun 05:34, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::::::I'm not sure I see the point. In many cases the arcs intertwine so much, especially in the case of DS9, where do we decide one ends and another starts? --Alan del Beccio 11:54, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::::In all fairness, Alan, let's be honest: you need glasses. You don't see the point in many things, be it a barnster, a duty roster, or a story arc. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 23:40, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::::: Your attitude is not becoming of someone who wishes to be an administrator-- especially considering the amount of personal attacks you make against me, which are frankly, uncalled for. I am not here simply to agree with or blindly follow everyones suggestions. I ask questions to analyze ''why certain things are being suggested in attempt to understand the legitimacy and long term necessity of various "projects" are. --Alan del Beccio 19:04, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::::::For the record, I don't make personal attacks against you. The "Mr. Vulcan" name was intended to be an affectionate nickname. :P And I did stop when you asked me to do so. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 19:34, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::::::: I consider the comment I replied to prior to this as a personal attack. As it had nothing to do with reponding to my legitimate quesiton. --Alan del Beccio 19:51, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::I apologize for that, as I didn't mean it as an attack, which isn't to say it wasn't uncalled for. As I read it now, it is inappropriate. It was mainly in response to the part about not seeing the point; your question is a legitimate one, and one with which I agree. I attempted to define the page when it was created by writing the introductory paragraphs, as it was just a list; however, my definition in the intro, if read carefully, doesn't match the lists we have. So it does need work, but as stated above could be useful. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 18:25, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC) As the starter of this debate, I've gone ahead and created Story arch. Do with it what you like, it needs a lot of work, and I'm sort of new to this. Jaz 23:18, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::9er, I don't know which comment of mine you did read, but it's surely not the one I added to this thread, right? Regarding your suggestion to simply create the page - sure, there's no permission necessary to create pages in article space, but there's nothing wrong with trying to discuss it before creation. The discussion about the article's content would have been held anyway, and the two page moves could have been avoided. Anyway, if there are any problems that are not related to this specific article, just let me know on my talk page, OK? -- Cid Highwind 12:22, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) New I've ended the debate, and created this page. I haven't created a major page before, so feel free to change it in any way you think can help, I think some of the sections need new names, but I can't think of better ones. There is a discussion in Ten Forward for more info. Jaz 23:17, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) :One question, isn't it supposed to be story arc? Or is the arc/arch thing one of those regional preferences? --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 23:41, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::I seem to be consistently of the same mind as the good Vedek. As a Californian (where admittedly English seems most elastic, but the birthplace of Star Trek), 'arc' seems refer to the shape resembling '^', and consistent with connected storylines. 'Arch' refers to an architectural structure. Just my two credits. Otherwise, I'm all in favor of the new page. AureliusKirk 03:24, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) :: As Gilda said... 'Never mind". AureliusKirk 03:38, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::To be consistent with our naming conventions, I moved it again to "Story arcs" (plural), as in '''List of story arcs. -- Cid Highwind 11:42, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) PNA I am removing the PNA-incomplete (which I added in the first place, right after I created this page). While I feel no page is ever really complete, this one no longer needs the notice. An inherent problem with this page Okay, on normal series this kind of idea works fine, but as we all know, DS9 was notorious for juggling numerous season-long story arcs. For example, I added anti-alien sentiments on Bajor as an arc, but the one about Bajor joining the Federation was basically omnipresent. Another would be the Maquis, which appeared in specific episodes but were still interwoven with yet another arc, the Klingon-Cardassian War. Of course the Dominion's occupation of Cardassia could be an arc in and of itself, but I guess that yields to the Dominion War in terms of relevancy. And then there's the one about Sisko's role as the Emissary... Umm, every episode, but I guess there were specific episodes where he was "dealing" with it (way too many IMHO). Does anyone see what I'm getting at? --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 08:58, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) * Not to say "I told you so," but I recall forseeing this when I questioned the necessity of this page: "In many cases the arcs intertwine so much, especially in the case of DS9, where do we decide one ends and another starts?" But alas, I was told I don't see the "point in many things." It now appears that this has nearly come full circle. Nevertheless, in terms of "non-consecutive arcs", which you just added the above referenced items, perhaps it would be best to stick to the basics, that is explicit "carry overs," otherwise we might have to face numerous other intertwined episodes like all of the Kazon episodes with Culluh/Seska/Jonas/and his "contact," as well as the intertwining of three or four story lines found in "Yesterday's Enterprise", "Sarek", "The Mind's Eye", "Redemption", "Redemption II", "Unification I", "Unification II" and "Face of the Enemy", and that doesn't include the whole Worf arc from TNG that is also partially involved in that list, "The Emissary", "Sins of the Father", "Reunion", "Birthright, Part I", "Birthright, Part II"...and several others I don't really feel the need to list from TNG, DS9 & ST7. --Alan del Beccio 09:10, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) **This is not as big a problem as one might think. In each episode, there is an A story and usually a B story. An "arc" takes up one of those slots in more than one episode, so in the case of Sisko or something else that took place over time, mention of episodes like Accession and Rapture is important but not every time they said emissary on screen. With others, yes, listing the episodes where it took place is a good thing, or if not then list the period over which it took place if it was just a passing thing. Makon 09:26, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) Suggestions for a better breakdown by type I absolutely love the idea behind this page, but I think it is structured in a way that makes it harder than it should be to actualy use it. For example I don't understand at all why the Dominion war arc is seperated in a "beginning of the dominion war" and an "ending of the dominion war". Furthermore i don't understand why there should be a breakdown in Multi-Episode Arcs an Non-Consecutive Arcs. After all, it's about the events, not the real-world developments in production. Here are some specific suggestions: *First of all, and I think this would greatly enhance the easyness to find a specific arc, make a distinction between character driven arcs and series of events wich do not involve specific characters. aditionaly there might be species/organisation related arcs. #Character driven arcs would include Khan Noonien Singh, Professor Moriarty, the data-lore-soong-story, Worfs dealings with his father, Harry Mud etc. #The second categorie, events, would include the Dominion war, the xindi incident, Voyager vs. Seska, Klingon politics (tng civil war arc etc), and the borg first contact incident, among others. #Aditionaly, it might be a good idea to have a categorie for species/organisation related stuf. This might be beneficial for example to have a bajoran arc where both the anti-alien sentiment-arc and the entry in the federation could be put. This way the succesion of events would be more coherent, and easyer to see. *Use of subdivisions of arcs would be interesting. For example i think the dominion war arc description would be drasticly more clear using this aproach. There could be a "meta-arc" for the dominion war, with subdivisions like "rising tensions" (with DS9:The Jem'Hadar, the die is cast etc), "Changeling Infiltration", and then the existing begining and ending of war sections (wich I find rather clumsy organised to begin with, i'd rather have something like "erruption of the conflict", "middle war" and "end of the war", but that's not realy the point here). *Short descriptions of the defining elements in these episodes. I by no means mean to add summaries, but rather something like "TOS: I, Mudd : The crew of the enterprise again encounters Mudd, who is now involved with a civilisation of androids", or something like that. Note that I have used some examples that are as of yet absent from the page. If anyone thinks these are bad ideas, or has aditional suggestions, please say so since I feel very strongly about this and I might not be able to resist the temptation to implement some of these ideas on my own. Star Trek can be a daunting thing for people who want to get to know it, and this is exactly the kind of reference that could make the process easyer. But for that to happen, this page should be understandable for people who don't know as much about Star Trek as we do. Dog with meat 01:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC) ::Wow, this is much more complicated than I envisioned when I created the page. I think it's good how it is, but try to remember that there is a difference between a story arc and a recurring character. Jaz 02:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Two-parters vs. Feature Length Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere, but does anyone know why Dark Frontier was feature length, but Future's End was a two-parter? AyalaofBorg 23:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Oh, and if anyone's going to revert my edit, please note the corrected spelling, separatly -> separately. Thank you. AyalaofBorg 00:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC) :My guess -- because Dark Frontier aired as a "2 hr" episode, whereas FE aired as two separate episodes, just back to back. :Oh, and the episodes listed on there were previously linked as they were titled in the main credits. Just as an aside. The old style also matched the general episode linking style much more closely. -- Sulfur 00:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC) :Crap. I fixed that in the one fix, and then broke it in the second. My apologies. -- Sulfur 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Dominion Invasion Arc The arc that ends with Sacrifice of Angels is defined in three different ways on MA: - Story arcs suggests it begins with In the Cards - the template states that it begins with Call to Arms - notes on the first six episodes of DS9 Season 6 define the arc as beginning with A Time to Stand It definitely needs to be standardised to avoid confusion. So which shall it be? - Cleanse 05:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC) :Definitely not A Time to Stand. In the Cards vs. Call to Arms is the only tough decision, but I would say Call to Arms. --Bp 07:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Story arcs/Arcs synch This is in some way a continuation of the above concern over synchronising how story arcs are defined. There are some Arcs that appear in the episode/film templates that don't appear here, and to be honest, it would be hard to fit them into the page here as it currently stands. Does the arc "Project Genesis" (films 2-4) go in 'Three-part episodes'? What about the "Worf's family" arc? This page is a little confusing, seeing as how it doesn't do what it first appears it should do: list the arcs defined elsewhere on MA. Any ideas on how to incorporate the somewhat more unusual arcs? Any other arcs that I've missed? --Jayunderscorezero 05:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Flashback and ST6? I might need some clarification as to the definition of a 'story arc' for purposes of this list, but I think it's a stretch to call this pairing a story arc. First, ST6 was not written with the intention to continue any plot aspects about Sulu beyond the movie. Second, Flashback only revisited the events of the film, it did not add to them, since it was a vision in Tuvok's mind. Anything that happened in his mind had nothing to do with the real life events of the film. A common theme, perhaps, but I don't think it's too much more than that. 31dot 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC) :I would not say that it is a story arc. Flashback only tells a little more of what happened, but there is no plotline. ST6 showed the capture of kirk & McCoy. Flashback showed a little of the rescue attempt by the Excelsior. Nothing more to talk about. and in flashback the rescueattempt was not a big thing, it was just a small thing to add. :I now honestly can't say that I really wrote what I'm thinking so that everybody understand. But in short, I don't think that ST6 and Flashback really has a story-arc.-- Örlogskapten. Qapl'a! 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC) ::To address the above concerns, "Trials and Tribble-ations", like "Flashback", "only revisited the events" of a previous episode/film and yet is included here as part of a story-arc. To include one and not the other seems odd. Also, to say that this doesn't count because the first part "was not written with the intention to continue any plot aspects" also seems strange when one considers that many arcs on this page started out with stand-alone episodes (e.g. "Space Seed"). Considering the precedents already established by this list, I fail to see why this arc would be disincluded. --Jayunderscorezero 02:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC) :::I would say that probably Trials and Tribble-ations shouldn't be here either, as much like Flashback and ST6 the newer episode only revisited the original, and was not a continuation. The same character or species should not make something a story arc by itself, as then any such episodes could be considered an arc(the Vulcan arc, the Borg arc, etc.) As for Space Seed and TWOK, the writers of TWOK intended to continue the story of Space Seed. The arc can be established with subsequent episodes. Again, I may be a bit unclear as to the definition we are working under, but simply seeing the same events again from a different perspective doesn't make an arc. 31dot 20:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC) (self-edited my comment for repetition) 31dot 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC) :::: I agree. But for making it easy, how about we create a page for episodes that show the same event from different places? like ST6 and Flashback. Trouble with Tribbles and Trials and Tribble-actions. BUT! before anyone says anything. Trouble with tribbles and More Tribbles more Troubble is a story arc, about cyrano Jones. but... then... how about the the ds9-tribble-episode and TOS-tribble-episode. they could be placed under a story arc regarding Arne Darvin, if that not is made already. The TOS is about how he failed because of Kirk, the DS9 is about how he tried to revenge on Kirk. far off...i know.-- Örlogskapten. Qapl'a! 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) ::Yeesh, this is getting complicated. To me, a story arc is when plot elements from one episode continue into another episode. Watching "Flashback" makes one think back to the events of ST6. Similarly, once one has seen "Flashback", subsequent reviews of ST6 also bring to mind the events of "Flashback", as now one is aware of something added to the story. There is an arc of sorts there, I'm sure. As for "Flashback" supposedly only revisiting the original and not continuing it, "Flashback" actually does add a number of elements to the Sulu plot of ST6, such as the encounter with Kang, and therefore does, in a sense, continue it (and also, through Tuvok, it does in fact continue elements from ST6 into the 'present' (of 2373)). --Jayunderscorezero 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC) ::I can see your point somewhat, but I don't think the common plot elements are substantial enough to call it an arc. I think that the plot elements have to be the focus of the stories in the arc in order to be one. ST6 was not about Captain Sulu, it was about making peace with the Klingons; Sulu was involved and developed, but the plot was not about Sulu. Flashback was not about Sulu, it was about Tuvok's memory virus. The fact that he got it during his Excelsior mission with Sulu was happenstance, he was not the focus of the story.(We didn't even see Tuvok in ST6.) An arc, in my opinion, means that the plots of all the individual stories advance a larger plot. The Dominion War arc was about the War. The arc with Seska and the Kazon trying to take over Voyager was about Seska and the Kazon....you get the idea. While both stories involve Sulu, no larger plot is advanced. Execept for the characters, the only thing the stories have in common is that they look at the same event from a different persepective. As for the scene with Kang, it actually serves to expand Tuvok's story, not Sulu's. 31dot 22:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC) ::True, but I believe that there are arcs and "sub-arcs", just as there are plots and sub-plots. A relatively minor element, carried through several otherwise unrelated episodes, and therefore increasing in importance, can still count as an arc of sorts. Still, I'm having to fight relatively hard to justify this one, so I guess not everyone sees eye to eye with me on this. Remove it from the list if you like. --Jayunderscorezero 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC) :::I can see what you mean by sub-arc. But i personally think about this page as a main-arc. How about a little proposal to all of you! How about we create a sub-headline for , what Jay said, sub-arcs? another sub-arc could be about how Nog worked his way into the Academy?-- Örlogskapten. Qapl'a! 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC) ::Sounds good to me, though I worry that it may complicate the page somewhat. Otherwise I'm behind the idea. --Jayunderscorezero 18:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Borg and first contact I've added the episode to the story arc about the Borg and First Contact. The reason is because in , the Borg send a signal to the Delta Quadrant, telling the Borg about the existence of humans. When they recieve the signal, they send the Cube that is first seen in Q Who and later in . therefore the actions taken in and Regeneration is directly related to the borg sending the cube and their first / second attempt to assimilate Earth. --myÖrlogstalkkaptenpage 15:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC) :That's not entirely accurate. Remember that we know from dialog in "Q Who" that the Borg had already entered Federation/Romulan space as early as "The Neutral Zone". The events of "Regeneration" create a predestination paradax that explain why the Borg would even have made the trip. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Well... but still, the episodes and movie are related. The events of "Regeneration" caused the events shown in "the neutral zone" and primary "Q Who" and "Best of Both Worlds, part I+II"--myÖrlogstalkkaptenpage 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Q Episodes?? Should ALL the Q episodes be considered an arc? For example, you have Q getting kicked out of the continuum, etc, then you have the Voyager Q eps (which are listed as their own arc on this page) but there could be a Q-Picard arc ... however I think all the Q eps are really an arc ... just wondering?? :) --Tvral 04:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC) :Recurring characters do not an arc make. :) -- Sulfur 15:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC) ::Then why do we have it in our sidebars (see Q Who)? No need to answer, I already know. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Section 31 I added a Section 31 story arch but half of it was just cut out. I can live with the "Enteprise Incident" and ST:VI, but "These are the Voyages..." clearly implies Section 31 involvement. Also, the reverting of my changes messed up the links in all of the other episodes that remained. As I spent the better half of the morning finding and linking the episodes, if someone wants to remove them, I think it is only fair that they fix the remaining links so they are not out of order. And then of course I feel that "These are the Voyages" shouldn't have been removed in the first place. Comments? -FleetCaptain 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC) :first, i moved this to the talk-page because this is the place for your discussion. second, a comment on "These are the Voyages". that episode takes place during the events of . Pegasus is more a section 31 episode than this one. It is not stated anything about S31 in The Pegasus. In These are the voyages, it is nothing about Section 31. it is about the final voyage of NX-01, Birth of the Federation, and Will's decision to tell picard about something or not. --Rom UlanHail 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC) The talk page statement on the article page was a problem with my browser, thanks for moving it. "These are the Voyages..." references "a secret section of Starfleet Security" that is behind the cloaking device. I've seen it in a bunch of places that this was indicating Section 31. -FleetCaptain 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC) ::We get a lot of these strange "arcs" lately... Two things in this case - first, if there's just a reference to some section of Starfleet security, this does not necessarily mean Section 31 - especially not when considering exactly how secret that organization still was years later. Let's see some behind-the-scenes information about that before we start speculating. Second, not everything that uses the same plot elements is an "arc". So what, if Section 31 was involved in three different plots spanning three centuries - is that an arc? I don't think so. -- Cid Highwind 21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC) :Good thinking Cid about that pna. We really should fix the Section 31-section. I really only thinks about those DS9-episodes as Section 31. I could stretchen out to include The Pegasus. But not "These are the voyages", that episode is more about will's decision to tell Cpt Picard, than the secret branch of starfleet. and for the rest of ENT, that is not Section 31.( they are an unnanmned secret branch of starfleet security, not section 31. Section 31 would not have let Reed of the hook.) They may be a predecessor, but not IT. And further more, those are not even an arc, or something that could qualifye as equal. it is just an organisation mentioned on-screen. serving of a plot-device in Demons and Terra Prime. In the two other ENT-episodes, they are more, but not enough.--Rom UlanHail 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Actually, the reference in "Enterprise" to Section 31 is extremely clear; as when Archer locates the primary "spymaster" he is told that the organization is based on "Section 31" of the Starfleet charter. Thus, what we see in Enterprise is very clearly part of the 31 backstory. Pegasus, having been written before 31 was introduced on DS9 is a bit harder to pin down and might be considered conjecture. But then, "These are the Voyages" references this special section of Starfleet Security and background info put out at the time of tis broadcast indicated this was Section 31. I will try and find out exactly where we can get a reference for that. As it stands right now, I like the layout in this article as it seems to cover everything being discussed. -FleetCaptain 23:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC) :::I have a suggestion. Why not, under the heading Section 31 on this page, list two arcs: "Section 31 in the 22nd Century" and "Section 31 in the 24th Century". Because I think they are distinct plot-wise. Then, on the ep pages, list the relevant arc, but also a template: "Section 31 Related Eps", which would be like this one: :::– Cleanse 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) :I support Cleanse's proposal. And i would like if FleetCaptain could get a reference. Besides that, are there really enough to make Section 31 an arc? I mean, just as an organisation they don't deserve an entire arc for themselves.--Rom UlanHail 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC) ::Yeah, I still don't really see the "arc" here. Even assuming that it definitely was Section 31 in all those episodes, the events are still completely unrelated. Some S31 operative hands out information in one episode. Another operative(?) tests a cloaking device in another. Somehow, the organization is involved in an assassination plot 100 years before/after the first two events mentioned. Oh, yes, and they created the nasty founder plague, too... :) ::This is no more an arc than the "Q arc" discussed and shot down in the section above. Not every episode that makes use of the same story element (character, organization) is part of an "arc". -- Cid Highwind 09:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC) :Now, when i think it's obvious that it does not fit into this page, can we delete the section Section 31? We don't have all the Q ep listed becuase that is not an arc by itself.Why should we have Section 31 here then?--Rom UlanHail 20:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Section 31 is very obviously an arc, especially in the DSN version where the relationship between Bashir and Sloan is flushed out over three episodes and then Bashir turns against Sloan in the last episode. 31's origins are thus explored in E''nterprise'' against the backdrop of the Klingon augment arc. This is indeed an arc and I am totally against simply blanking it. I do however like the idea of separating it into two separate arcs; but blanking it, no. -FleetCaptain 21:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC) :Now you are talking in a way that sounds better (no offense). I am against putting the entire Section31-episodes as one arc, just as Q is not an arc by him(?)self. But making it into an arc, like the VOY-Q-episodes. they are about the new way of the continoum and the events following. If you can make SEction 31 into arcs that is not only that SEction 31 appears/mentioned.--Rom UlanHail 21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC) :Just took a look on the article-page. looks good!:-)-- Rom Ulan 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)